Cargando…

The Model for End-stage Liver Disease 3.0 is not superior to the Model for End-stage Liver Disease-Na in predicting survival: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: The Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) 3.0 yields high prognostic performance for patients with end-stage liver disease (ESLD). However, its prognostic performance for patients with alcohol-related liver disease (ARLD) has limited results. The aim of this study was to perform such...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Duan, Fangfang, Liu, Chen, Zhai, Hang, Quan, Min, Cheng, Jun, Yang, Song
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10519463/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37738412
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/HC9.0000000000000250
_version_ 1785109703405076480
author Duan, Fangfang
Liu, Chen
Zhai, Hang
Quan, Min
Cheng, Jun
Yang, Song
author_facet Duan, Fangfang
Liu, Chen
Zhai, Hang
Quan, Min
Cheng, Jun
Yang, Song
author_sort Duan, Fangfang
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) 3.0 yields high prognostic performance for patients with end-stage liver disease (ESLD). However, its prognostic performance for patients with alcohol-related liver disease (ARLD) has limited results. The aim of this study was to perform such an evaluation among Chinese patients. METHODS: Patients hospitalized with ARLD in one institution between 2015 and 2018 were retrospectively included and followed up for 12 months. The original MELD, MELD-Na, MELD 3.0, and modified Maddrey discriminant function (MDF) scores were calculated for each patient at baseline. Their prognostic performances for 1-year survival were assessed. Time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed, and AUCs were calculated for each scoring system. RESULTS: Among the 576 patients included in our analysis, 209 patients had alcoholic hepatitis (AH). By the 1-year follow-up, 14.8% (84/567) of all the patients and 23.4% (49/209) of those with AH had died. Overall, patients who had died had higher MELD, MELD-Na, MELD 3.0, and MDF scores (all p < 0.001) than those who had not. The same was true in the AH subgroup (MELD: p < 0.001, MELD-Na: p < 0.001, MELD 3.0: p = 0.007, MDF: p = 0.017). The AUC of the MELD 3.0 for prediction of 1-year survival among patients with ARLD was 0.682, lower than that of the original MELD (0.728, p < 0.001) and MELD-Na (0.735, p < 0.001). Moreover, in the AH subgroup, the AUC for the prediction of 1-year survival was lower than that in the MELD-Na subgroup (0.634 vs. 0.708, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The MELD 3.0 was not superior to the original MELD or the MELD-Na in predicting the mortality of patients with ARLD.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10519463
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105194632023-09-26 The Model for End-stage Liver Disease 3.0 is not superior to the Model for End-stage Liver Disease-Na in predicting survival: A retrospective cohort study Duan, Fangfang Liu, Chen Zhai, Hang Quan, Min Cheng, Jun Yang, Song Hepatol Commun Original Article BACKGROUND: The Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) 3.0 yields high prognostic performance for patients with end-stage liver disease (ESLD). However, its prognostic performance for patients with alcohol-related liver disease (ARLD) has limited results. The aim of this study was to perform such an evaluation among Chinese patients. METHODS: Patients hospitalized with ARLD in one institution between 2015 and 2018 were retrospectively included and followed up for 12 months. The original MELD, MELD-Na, MELD 3.0, and modified Maddrey discriminant function (MDF) scores were calculated for each patient at baseline. Their prognostic performances for 1-year survival were assessed. Time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed, and AUCs were calculated for each scoring system. RESULTS: Among the 576 patients included in our analysis, 209 patients had alcoholic hepatitis (AH). By the 1-year follow-up, 14.8% (84/567) of all the patients and 23.4% (49/209) of those with AH had died. Overall, patients who had died had higher MELD, MELD-Na, MELD 3.0, and MDF scores (all p < 0.001) than those who had not. The same was true in the AH subgroup (MELD: p < 0.001, MELD-Na: p < 0.001, MELD 3.0: p = 0.007, MDF: p = 0.017). The AUC of the MELD 3.0 for prediction of 1-year survival among patients with ARLD was 0.682, lower than that of the original MELD (0.728, p < 0.001) and MELD-Na (0.735, p < 0.001). Moreover, in the AH subgroup, the AUC for the prediction of 1-year survival was lower than that in the MELD-Na subgroup (0.634 vs. 0.708, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The MELD 3.0 was not superior to the original MELD or the MELD-Na in predicting the mortality of patients with ARLD. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2023-09-22 /pmc/articles/PMC10519463/ /pubmed/37738412 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/HC9.0000000000000250 Text en Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
spellingShingle Original Article
Duan, Fangfang
Liu, Chen
Zhai, Hang
Quan, Min
Cheng, Jun
Yang, Song
The Model for End-stage Liver Disease 3.0 is not superior to the Model for End-stage Liver Disease-Na in predicting survival: A retrospective cohort study
title The Model for End-stage Liver Disease 3.0 is not superior to the Model for End-stage Liver Disease-Na in predicting survival: A retrospective cohort study
title_full The Model for End-stage Liver Disease 3.0 is not superior to the Model for End-stage Liver Disease-Na in predicting survival: A retrospective cohort study
title_fullStr The Model for End-stage Liver Disease 3.0 is not superior to the Model for End-stage Liver Disease-Na in predicting survival: A retrospective cohort study
title_full_unstemmed The Model for End-stage Liver Disease 3.0 is not superior to the Model for End-stage Liver Disease-Na in predicting survival: A retrospective cohort study
title_short The Model for End-stage Liver Disease 3.0 is not superior to the Model for End-stage Liver Disease-Na in predicting survival: A retrospective cohort study
title_sort model for end-stage liver disease 3.0 is not superior to the model for end-stage liver disease-na in predicting survival: a retrospective cohort study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10519463/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37738412
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/HC9.0000000000000250
work_keys_str_mv AT duanfangfang themodelforendstageliverdisease30isnotsuperiortothemodelforendstageliverdiseasenainpredictingsurvivalaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT liuchen themodelforendstageliverdisease30isnotsuperiortothemodelforendstageliverdiseasenainpredictingsurvivalaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT zhaihang themodelforendstageliverdisease30isnotsuperiortothemodelforendstageliverdiseasenainpredictingsurvivalaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT quanmin themodelforendstageliverdisease30isnotsuperiortothemodelforendstageliverdiseasenainpredictingsurvivalaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT chengjun themodelforendstageliverdisease30isnotsuperiortothemodelforendstageliverdiseasenainpredictingsurvivalaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT yangsong themodelforendstageliverdisease30isnotsuperiortothemodelforendstageliverdiseasenainpredictingsurvivalaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT duanfangfang modelforendstageliverdisease30isnotsuperiortothemodelforendstageliverdiseasenainpredictingsurvivalaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT liuchen modelforendstageliverdisease30isnotsuperiortothemodelforendstageliverdiseasenainpredictingsurvivalaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT zhaihang modelforendstageliverdisease30isnotsuperiortothemodelforendstageliverdiseasenainpredictingsurvivalaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT quanmin modelforendstageliverdisease30isnotsuperiortothemodelforendstageliverdiseasenainpredictingsurvivalaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT chengjun modelforendstageliverdisease30isnotsuperiortothemodelforendstageliverdiseasenainpredictingsurvivalaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT yangsong modelforendstageliverdisease30isnotsuperiortothemodelforendstageliverdiseasenainpredictingsurvivalaretrospectivecohortstudy